Originally Posted by Rhumbatugger:
“NONE of the Strictly ATs this year have been 'propah' apparantly.
But I've not seen such nastiness against another celeb this year about their AT.
Which they did not choreograph, and neither did their pro.
This seems to be, in great part, a chance to stick the boot in to someone who is not the 'favourite'.
And on occasion using 'specialist' knowledge to do it, when they refrain or gloss over, for other celebs.
I'm not particularly impressed. Some exceptions granted, but this seems massively lacking in fairness and objectivity.
But what'[s new about AT crit, I suppose.”
You raise a relevant issue if the choreograpy is bought in . you can't do what you were not given to do. The simple question, with the same marks, is easier than the more difficult one.
The show has never dealt with this issue - do we mark the choregraphy or the performance of it? Do we penalise lack of content, and reward added difficulty. They are hopelessly inconsistent on this.
But it should have been dealt with - by a specification that says the dancer will not spend 80% of the first minute standing still, and will do these steps.
And you fundamentally don't know if the choregraphy is simple- because its hiding what the contestant can't do - or because the choreographer is useless, or having a brain funk.
The fair answer would be to get a series of dances, of equal difficulty, and allocate them randomly . Until that happens, the judges need to comment on what they are given , and not claim that something poorly acted and static, was full of good acting and movement.
It really is that easy. It just takes a little practice.”
